Curled vs. Arched fingers

[danny elfboy]

This is a follow-up to the "rather flat fingers" post

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,23789.0.html

Curled fingers are dangerous as the two end joints of the fingers are moved by the flexor muscles on the lower side of the forearm. Holding the fingers curled requires maintaining the contraction of the flexor muscles. Lifting of the fingers, on the other hand, is accomplished by contracting the extensor muscles
Therefore, if I lift my fingers while maintaining the "curl" of the two end joints, I am using flexor muscles and extensor muscles simultaneously; in other words, I am co-contracting. Co-contraction is one cause of injury; there are pianists who have suffered injury from playing with curled fingers. The anatomical fact is that if we play in this position we are risking injury. Yet playing with curled fingers is not only tolerated, it is advocated by some piano methods


Naturally arched fingers (correct playing position to maintain)



Curled fingers (seriously harmful)



(It's also interesting to see that only naturally arched fingers allow the wrist to be aligned with the forearm rather than breaking the "bridge" between the hand and the arm)

[leahcim]

Is there anyone in your class that can hold a pencil? Do you call an ambulance?

Seriously, movements matter not static images. You can be tense and have co-contraction or not with your hands looking like either image you've posted here, especially when you actually play / hold down notes.

Perhaps when you show students in your class what you think they should do you should focus on the movements they make that will allow them to clearly _feel_ that tension has been removed when they do them? That is IMHO what matters, not some aesthetic static image. Once you remove tension and feel it for yourself when you're playing notes, IME things drop into place, whereas any amount of holding your hands in a specific way to emulate a photo or another pianist, if you're still tense probably won't help [and worse, as you may have found, aren't likely to convince anyone that they are better]

[danny elfboy]

Is there anyone in your class that can hold a pencil? Do you call an ambulance?

Seriously, movements matter not static images. You can be tense and have co-contraction or not with your hands looking like either image you've posted here, especially when you actually play / hold down notes.

You're wrong about this one
There's no way an hand looking like the second pic doesn't invole co-contraction
Look at the joints. It's impossible to bend the joint without contracting the muscles and pulling the tendons either voluntarily or unvoluntarily
Movements may matter more than pics but the second drawings clearly shows a contraction since it's impossible to assume that position without muscle contraction
Whatever movement while a muscle is contraction will result in co-contraction
The only way to avoid co-contraction would be releasing the muscle bending the fingers joint first but this would immediately and automatically destroy the second drawing position.

Also notice the wrist. No matter what, such a collapsed wrist will always be harmful and injurying and absolutely useless no matter what effect you're trying to create

You're right though that one's hand can look like the first drawing and still be co-contracted but that would involve the co-contraction of other muscles not the muscles that bend the joints. Whatever look like the second picture static or in movement is absolutely and unavoidably co-contracting and pressing on the median nerve

You're right that "removing all tension" is more than just looking at a pic or just keeping your hand in a certain "neutral" position (which you can deviate from time to time but should come back to as soon as possible)
But I was specifically talking about the co-contraction of the extensor and the flexor muscles and I was specifically talking about the problem of playing with bend joints (curled fingers)

I'm not claiming this is the "one fits all" solution to injuries and tension but it's ONE isolated aspect of how tension is created. There are other ways and as you say you can still create contraction even if your joint are not bend. But this post was specifically made to discuss the unavoidable co-contraction and injury of curled fingers

[leahcim]

Also notice the wrist. No matter what, such a collapsed wrist will always be harmful and injurying and absolutely useless no matter what effect you're trying to create

Yeah, I did notice the wrist. IIRC That's the part of your message I quoted and wanted to address, because afaict it wasn't true to say that for the wrist to be aligned you must hold your fingers in the way you've pictured.

I don't agree that there aren't contexts where the wrist could well be in that position with otherwise comfortable and injury free playing though. But I won't disagree that some extreme wrist angles / movements can / will lead to trouble like CTS.

It's precisely the lack of knowledge about the context that means you can't say one way or another whether the picture is bad IMO.

Especially not in a 'A wrist in this position will ALWAYS be harmful' Have you seen Horowitz? I note he has a very low wrist for some phrases he plays. [He actually has what most would have probably called flat fingers]

I could sort of grok the fingers but it's like you note, in some places folks fingers are adopting myriad positions that bely either picture being 'right' per se - and imo, although I've already said this, you can't really ignore the dynamic nature of it and a simple pose of your hand as in picture 1 isn't enough IME.

But, that said https://www.pianomap.com/injuries/causes.html seems convinced enough to be saying nigh on the same thing - at least in the context of lifting your fingers if they are curled - but even that seems to be taking an assumption about what will happen if your fingers are curled, you've said Bernhard agrees with you, but nigh on every post he made that mentioned fingers had the words 'not lifting' near it somewhere, so why would, in that context, not being able to lift them matter? I thought it was all arm movements and rotation instead?

[danny elfboy]

Yeah, I did notice the wrist. IIRC That's the part of your message I quoted and wanted to address, because afaict it wasn't true to say that for the wrist to be aligned you must hold your fingers in the way you've pictured.

I don't agree that there aren't contexts where the wrist could well be in that position with otherwise comfortable and injury free playing though. But I won't disagree that some extreme wrist angles / movements can / will lead to trouble like CTS.

It's precisely the lack of knowledge about the context that means you can't say one way or another whether the picture is bad IMO.

Especially not in a 'A wrist in this position will ALWAYS be harmful' Have you seen Horowitz? I note he has a very low wrist for some phrases he plays. [He actually has what most would have probably called flat fingers

Well ... this seems the sort of argument "my grandfather used to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes daily and survived till the age of 102"
This doesn't deny the documented correlation/causation between smoking and the incidence of lung cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease ...

What I'm saying is that "X pianist uses X position and still doesn't develop injuries" doesn't mean that X position/movement is not absolutely harmful and wrong

We also have different kind of physical resistance. To say that something harmful is not affecting a person doesn't imply that thing is not that harmful after all but that the person has a greater resistance to harmful stimulus

I don't think the context can't change the underlying anatomical universal principle
But in showing those drawings I didn't mean to state that you must "HOLD" you hand in that position. I'm against holding the hand in whatever position. So you must use your imagination and think of those position as "moving"

The first pic moving would produce lifting movements of the "arched" fingers
The second pic moving would produce lifting movements of the "curled" fingers

It doesn't matter the contest lifting curled fingers is always injurying even when such injurying stimulus doesn't injury more physically resistant beings

But, that said https://www.pianomap.com/injuries/causes.html seems convinced enough to be saying nigh on the same thing - at least in the context of lifting your fingers if they are curled - but even that seems to be taking an assumption about what will happen if your fingers are curled, you've said Bernhard agrees with you, but nigh on every post he made that mentioned fingers had the words 'not lifting' near it somewhere, so why would, in that context, not being able to lift them matter? I thought it was all arm movements and rotation instead?

It doesn't matter
Curled fingers keep the muscles contracted no matter what since it's impossible to curl the fingers and maintain them curled without contracting the muscles
Rotating the forearm requires a different kind of contracting muscles so again curling while lifting or curling while rotating is stressful and potentially injurying anyway

[leahcim]

this seems the sort of argument "my grandfather used to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes daily and survived till the age of 102"
This doesn't deny the documented correlation/causation between smoking and the incidence of lung cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease ...

No, it isn't. I wasn't trying to say anything about your Grandfather's pulmonary problems.

By context I meant nothing more complicated than :- if you imagine your drawings to be, say, one frame out of a 25 or 30 frames per second PAL/NTSC video then the 'good' or 'bad'ness about the movement that led to those positions would be in the context of a longer piece of that film and not the 'bad positions' stills that your pictures are showing.

AFAICT, contracting your muscles isn't bad per se either. Let your hand flop on the end of your arm so that your fingers are more or less straight, now turn your arm over [or just lift it], do your fingers not adopt a more curled position, even though for the turning case you were just letting your hand flop? QUICK DIE! DIE! AMBULANCE! DANGER DANGER PANIC! THE CIGS DIDN'T GET GRAMPS IT WAS TURNING/LIFTING HIS ARM! I think perspective is needed when you call things dangerous

Neither is co-contraction what you've described it as in this post. Not the least because, in an earlier post you've already said [using the word "specifically"] what co-contraction is, so I don't understand why you're changing it now?

Unless you mistakenly think I'm arguing about what it is? If so, that wasn't the case.

As you might say to your Grandad, quit while you're ahead You seemed to know what co-contraction was

John Bell Young talks in one of his youtube videos about people getting a fetish about movements and finger positions, and it is a bit of a religion if you're not careful. [He also suggests the way to do it is to develop a sound action when you're a kid, which is pretty useless if you aren't one, but maybe he has a good point and is subtly telling adults like myself to forget it ]


This is not an argument I wanted to have.

I'm certainly not qualified and, unless I'm mistaken I don't think you're the source of what you're saying either? It feels too much like 2 people arguing after reading brief history of time, but thinking they are discussing physics and, as the Dragon's might say "Best of luck selling your product, but I'm declaring myself out"

Anyway, in summary :- Aside from the one comment about wrist alignment which was obviously not the case [which I thought I'd quoted, but apparently not], I had only hoped my comment about movements rather than positions might precipitate more info from you, not an argument about what you had already drawn / written.

You answered that by saying "this is just ONE isolated aspect..." the thing I ultimately disagree with is that the drawings tell us much about piano playing by themselves, but that's a very short argument and won't justify a long thread. "Oh no they don't" "Oh yes they do" Fair enough, if you're not going to say any more then that's it afaict, unless you think it's worth more than 2 threads? I think we've got it

[danny elfboy]

No, it isn't. I wasn't trying to say anything about your Grandfather's pulmonary problems.

By context I meant nothing more complicated than :- if you imagine your drawings to be, say, one frame out of a 25 or 30 frames per second PAL/NTSC video then the 'good' or 'bad'ness about the movement that led to those positions would be in the context of a longer piece of that film and not the 'bad positions' stills that your pictures are showing.

AFAICT, contracting your muscles isn't bad per se either. Let your hand flop on the end of your arm so that your fingers are more or less straight, now turn your arm over [or just lift it], do your fingers not adopt a more curled position, even though for the turning case you were just letting your hand flop? QUICK DIE! DIE! AMBULANCE! DANGER DANGER PANIC! THE CIGS DIDN'T GET GRAMPS IT WAS TURNING/LIFTING HIS ARM! I think perspective is needed when you call things dangerous

Neither is co-contraction what you've described it as in this post. Not the least because, in an earlier post you've already said [using the word "specifically"] what co-contraction is, so I don't understand why you're changing it now?

Unless you mistakenly think I'm arguing about what it is? If so, that wasn't the case.

As you might say to your Grandad, quit while you're ahead You seemed to know what co-contraction was

John Bell Young talks in one of his youtube videos about people getting a fetish about movements and finger positions, and it is a bit of a religion if you're not careful. [He also suggests the way to do it is to develop a sound action when you're a kid, which is pretty useless if you aren't one, but maybe he has a good point and is subtly telling adults like myself to forget it ]


This is not an argument I wanted to have.

I'm certainly not qualified and, unless I'm mistaken I don't think you're the source of what you're saying either?

No and yes. I've been researching about anatomy, piano injuries and efficient piano playing for quite some time. English is not my native language and I can't express myself properly and the correct english italic quotes of course are not mine. But I'm rather familiar with the arguments proposed and their correctness, it's not like I just read and article and as a consequence wrote this thread

Not making an ad hominem argument but I'm not naively religiously following one single source, I've researched long enough anatomy, neurology and efficient use of the body at playing and the nature of injuries

Anyway, in summary :- Aside from the one comment about wrist alignment which was obviously not the case [which I thought I'd quoted, but apparently not], I had only hoped my comment about movements rather than positions might precipitate more info from you, not an argument about what you had already drawn / written.

it's simpler than that

static position may explain certain things
movements may explain others

arguments about movements do provide more info (if I could post videos about movements) but don't make the argument based on static position drawings invalid

You answered that by saying "this is just ONE isolated aspect..." the thing I ultimately disagree with is that the drawings tell us much about piano playing by themselves

I didn't say they tell much. I said they're limited in what they say

I'm not making arguments that require "movements" to be made, but arguments that can be made just by using static pics.

Bending the two end joints is not desirable, is useless and create tension and injuries
That can be showed even with a static pic because the anatomical fact remains
The pic by the way was intended to show what I mean by bent joints and what I mean by not bent joints NOT TO SAY that one should assume that static position when playing (which would be insane to even suggest)

While I understand and agree with you about what more information could be provided by using "movements vids" rather than "static drawings" I can't provide them as such I was not making a "universal argument for playing" but an "anatomical argument" and the static pics worked in showing the two anatomical principles (bent vs not bent)

I disagree that bent joint has a purpose or could be applied to playing without creating tension and injuries.

Let your hand flop on the end of your arm so that your fingers are more or less straight, now turn your arm over [or just lift it], do your fingers not adopt a more curled position, even though for the turning case you were just letting your hand flop?

While it's true that the level of curleness changes as the position of the hand changes as you suggested the end joint NEVER curl themselves inward naturally ... that always require a conscious muscle contraction and tension to maintain them in that unnatural position

[leahcim]

I've researched long enough anatomy, neurology and efficient use of the body at playing and the nature of injuries

I thought you'd read and believe certain arguments which you are repeating here?

Which is fine, not the least because  I'm not pretending to do any more than that.

But it does make the big difference that there's not much point us 2 arguing whether what you've said is correct or not - except where it seems self-evidently not to be true or differs from our own experiences of injuries [or playing without getting them]

When you finish that research and get that doctorate in anatomy, neurology and the nature of injuries, you can tell us what's wrong with your posts or not, and you won't need me to argue to do that. I doubt at that time you'd bother arguing with me about the subject

For me I would say I've seen and read similar 'how you should play the piano' arguments /methods to yours and others and the end result is that there are a bunch of conflicting arguments. In the sense that either they can't all be right or, that the specific differences don't matter.

For that I'll include the 'argument' that someone is making when they play the piano in a specific way to a high standard - the 'Look at me, I can play really well' argument that most of us would probably like to make]

I guess I used to like the "one" idea that I believed was the way you should play [and perhaps if I could find a teacher that was confident they knew and would teach me their one way I'd just do that and not worry about the other ways that differ from it] but now I've seen so many different arguments, I think pretty much like Peter Feuchtwanger describes on an article on his site where he talks of someone watching different pianists and deciding there is no one way.

At which point PF does a Bernhard and talks about Gould and injuries. But Gould is such an extreme it doesn't seem a valid counter example.

So I'd say that either you have decided which argument you believe or simply haven't seen a lot of them yet [..or if you prefer, you've decided because of your research] I certainly haven't done any research in the scientific, publishing papers for peer review and doing experiments and so on sense that would tell me stuff about anatomy, neurology and piano injuries to decide which of the various methods is correct or not - but if someone tells me I can't move my wrist when my fingers are curled I'm not likely to believe that they have either.

[That said, you might argue that this one tiny aspect you think is so important is the same in all of them, but to me, I think your picture begs as many questions as it might answer - and doesn't immediately remove the problems I'm having with tension in my playing and specifically the pain in my right arm. Perhaps this is why some of the advocates for methods are wary about talking about one tiny aspect of them?]

the end joint NEVER curl themselves inward naturally ... that always require a conscious muscle contraction and tension to maintain them in that unnatural position

"bad habits" doesn't really equate to your idea that you have stated here.

Think about that...you seem to inventing a meaning of 'naturally'? If I read your post correctly, you seem to be saying that if I played the piano without _consciously_ contracting my muscles then I would play properly or 'naturally'? [or at least not do the one thing you're worried about?]

I would say that clearly that's not the case, a lot of people you'll see bending their fingers [quite often the end joint will collapse the opposite way too], raising their shoulders, slouching when sitting, typing on a computer keyboard etc etc etc, a whole host of muscular contractions and co-contractions, which they are doing habitually and subconsciously - it's part of their playing, indeed, part of their everyday life for a lot of things.

They aren't having to consciously focus on their fingers to make some 'unnatural' movement are they?

"naturally" as you've used it, to me, just seems like a complete misnomer. I think where people use it what they are really trying to say is that if we use our hands in the way that in the past they have evolved to be used then we wouldn't typically make some movements with them which our modern life / tech might lead us to because of things like computers / musical instruments and so on.

You seem to have interpreted 'naturally' to either mean 'positions where muscles aren't contracted' [but that's 'death' isn't it? ] or perhaps you meant 'subconsciously' [but as above that's not the case as 'bad habits' almost seems to define] or perhaps you're using 'natural movements' to imply 'good' ones, but that would just rename them rather than say anything about them.

[danny elfboy]

There are certain languages barrier that doesn't allow me to reply at full
I will just make two points:

1) let's not make an ad hominem argument here
Ph.D, official studies and other nonsense mean nothing
In real science (where ad hominem arguments are not allowed) everyone can prove or disprove everything, it's the fact that matters not whether he/she studies in a school, god a degree or is just an amateur. In mathematics even a janitor without any kind of school is allowed to prove or disprove a principle; what he/she says mattern not his/her degree

2) Maybe natural is a wrong term but remember that your habits argument is wrong too
Aquired habits dont' make them natural
I've attended Alexander Technique for 3 years
All kind of physical habit that humans have are not only unnatural for the body but destructive to the core. Slouching especially, tensing, locking the neck, starting the movements from the hips rather than the hand, locking the joints

Why they can be called unnatural?
Because they goes against the "natural" skeleton alignment and its relationship with gravity. As long as the skeleton is aligned gravity is working for us, when we destroy the alignment gravity works against us. If you had seen the health transformation of people at Alexander seminars you would understand what I'm talking about

Another reason that allows to call these "habits" unnatural is that it's very hard to aquire them since it requires a lot of painful awkward movements and positions
Children have been observed maintain a perfect alignment and never allow gravity to work against them. This also suggested that "the right natural movements" are wired into us and it's what we're supposed to do

I also disagree about your comment on "new movements"
There's no reason to believe that whatever modern movement implying modern means like typewriter, computers, sport equipment, kitchen tools and so on CAN'T BE DONE WITHOUT TENSION and CO-CONTRACTION. It's simply UNTRUE
Whatever movement can be compromised to be unstresfull and non-injurying

[leahcim]

There are certain languages barrier that doesn't allow me to reply at full
I will just make two points:

1) let's not make an ad hominem argument here

Eh? Your English seems ok when it suits you, doesn't it? I mean, when you want to c&p a website you don't say "the language barrier I have may mean I don't really understand what this website says, but..." do you?

You can't say "no speaky de English" and then moan that the thread is talking about what you can and can't do

Albeit, if you don't speak English, that's fair enough, I probably don't speak whatever other language(s) you feel comfortable with, but surely that's just another reason not to have the debate? One that you at least accept is true, even though it amounts to the same thing you're complaining about.

Because, I wasn't making an ad hominem argument when I said neither of us is qualified so we shouldn't debate. That's "not having an argument" rather than "an ad hominem argument".

That said, the later posts you have made are different - because you switched from sharing someone else's opinions [often with quoted words in a language that you claim not to comprehend] about one static position you believe you should use when playing the piano, to making bold claims about yourself that don't appear to stack.

If you felt insulted by the suggestion that neither of us has the background knowledge I'm surprised, but note you must at least accept the fact that I'm saying I don't have it, no?

At which point if you really wish to assert that you do have the necessary knowledge and honestly believe that "Ph.D, official studies and other nonsense mean nothing" then why would you be arguing with me about it?

You're out of our league swimming with minnows. Don't let the education system hold you back. If I were you I'd go straight to wikipedia now. I bet within a short time there you'd be just the kind of person that's made wikipedia the source of knowledge that it is today

I can't see Richard Dawkins will argue with me about evolutionary theory, even if I've read his web site or book, YMMV. [When I say I read his book and website, I mean "I've researched theology, evolutionary theory, and how to cycle without hurting your feet" ]

I probably wouldn't understand your average paper on neurology, let alone begin to pretend that I'd researched the subject, again YMMV.

I have watched a TV programme showing a human body being dissected [I only caught the digestive tract episode though it started ok but was a load of crap at the end Geddit? ]

It's one thing to believe or accept somebody saying something, but, for someone to assert that it's the case and make what they are calling 'an anatomical argument' and for it to be valid scientific research requires more.

Simply attending a class or reading a webpage where someone else has said it's true. Isn't enough. Watching people you believe to be ill get "cured" isn't even as poor as that scientific research phd nonsense that means nothing to you.

That's not to say that you can't say "Here look, hold your hands like this" - it's just that I don't see any point in having a debate about the accuracy of a specific method unless the 2 people are qualified...rather than just fans. If that's ad hominem, well then it shouldn't be that difficult to put me straight.

Attending an Alexandar seminar [as a pupil?] did not import to you a background that makes your qualifications of "anatomy, neurology and efficient use of the body at playing and the nature of injuries" after 'research' true.

Besides I think you're forgetting that you haven't actually said anything at all about piano movements, ONE aspect that wasn't a movement and that, if you did it, the piano wouldn't make any sound

You just drew 2 pictures and made comments that if their truth was questioned you said was because you didn't speak English. Is that really Alexandar's technique?

Statements like "As long as the skeleton is aligned gravity is working for us" make no sense without a context afaict. It's just bollocks isn't it? If I align my skeleton [which I suspect will require me to move which is an aspect you haven't addressed anyway] at the bottom of a large hill do I get to cycle down it instead? Again cycling, like piano playing requires me to move - aligned or not, thus still leaving your posts wanting.

Nevertheless, it seems completely unnecessary to have made such overstating claims in the first place. This is a piano forum, after all, not the lancet. The discussion here is piano playing not science. Even by the people who actually are scientists. It might be valid to question whether some claim that is made about a method is scientifically true, the people that do that need to be qualified - don't misinterpret that though, it really does mean that your paper on the subject needs to go through that peer review process, I'm not suggesting that your lack of O'level French is an issue.

As you seem to believe you know what "real science" is, I'm sure you'll know that neither of us has posted any? You certainly haven't proved a new mathematical principle either - even if you are a janitor or have a degree or not. So I don't understand the protesting that we should accept the janitors new paper? Where is your new paper that has been rejected here?

Trust me when I say, if I thought you were a janitor [Do you have something against janitors when you say "EVEN a janitor" Mr non ad hominem? You think you aren't just a janitor? But do you have any maths published? We all might be cleaning a school one day... and then we'll know a janitor that's probably not as clever as we think] who had some new scientific research or maths to share I wouldn't send you back to your mops because you didn't have a degree. But I would advise that you send the paper to a respected journal for peer review / proof checking and so on rather than post it here. In the meantime, don't kid yourself that's what our posts were, eh? 

[pianistimo]

the proof of the proverbial pudding, leahcim, is the length of time (how many years) one can be a professional pianist playing long or medium length recitals without having some damage occur (CT). 

i was paying good money for grad level piano lessons from a person who had a doctorate in piano.  despite his undergrad piano lessons from amazing teachers, HE GOT CT (or something similar) -  then, had to spend some time recovering.  in this recovery process he became more interested in the combined techniques of several methods (in terms of what i understood about how he played).  he graduated from julliard and i feel that he truly is at the pinnacle of what it means to understand piano technique and SOUND.  you get a much better sound from the piano when your fingers are already touching the keys.  try it!  for one thing - you do not hear 'key slap.'  not the slap before or after.

one part of his technique was DEFINATELY relaxed/naturally arched fingers - and even at times completely flat (as it works oppositely from extremely curved fingers) gving the hand a little give and take with the muscles and not allowing them ALWAYS to be in one 'position.'  i would say when he plays extremely wide intervals - the hand moves in a flat position.  believe it or not, this helps with speed tremendously.  the 'zip' movement.  try it!  you might be amazed how it works.

anyways- to say what i want to say - it is true that everyone has a different hand and comfort level of what their hands can do (some is trained - from previous teachers).  if you are truly becoming efficient at the piano - you can become able to play through what used to be very challenging and difficult works with MUCH greater ease the more you are relaxed.  as dannyelfboy put it - the way yoiu used to be when you were a child.  you didn't plan even 'how to hold a pencil.'  you, in fact, may have had trouble grasping a pencil.  after all, we weren't born with pencils in our hands. 

of course, one may argue, playing the piano isn't natural either.  but, as with sports and other activities that one uses their hands for - when you learn to be as relaxed as possible within the context of playing piano - you can actually feel like you are doing nothing at all.  as though you could be drinking a cup of tea and reading the paper.  of course, it is work, but the work itself is learning to relax!

[rc]

lol, it's good to have you back leahciM!

I might as well chip in my two cents while I'm here:  It's useful to be aware of the predominant position we hold our hands, because it's easy to slip into destructive patterns.  Injuries are a pain, so I hear.  But it's damn hard to talk about, misunderstandings are a natural result, and I wonder the wisdom of even trying?  To me, motions are a secondary thing, it's what we pay attention to when something goes wrong, the first indicator is how our hands feel.  I think it's more productive to put our attention on the feeling of ease for preventive medicine...  That focusing on how the playing looks is more likely to cause trouble than solve it.

of course, one may argue, playing the piano isn't natural either.  but, as with sports and other activities that one uses their hands for - when you learn to be as relaxed as possible within the context of playing piano - you can actually feel like you are doing nothing at all.  as though you could be drinking a cup of tea and reading the paper.  of course, it is work, but the work itself is learning to relax!

This reminds me of something I read in a Glenn Gould interview, where he said he tries to prentend his hands aren't actually his.  Gould may have been a kook (and the worst person to bring up in a discussion on healthy technique ), but this was a useful bit of advice: sometimes the best way to play relaxed is to forget about our hands as much as possible!

My teacher also had to overcome injury, and now that I'm walking the path more seriously I see how easy it can be to get into trouble.  It seems to me a lot of the source of unnecessary tension comes from how we think in practice and playing, our approach to the whole thing.  I suspect the root cause of ALL tension actually.  What's the difference between the child learning and the adult?  our bodies are what they are, but our ways of thinking are radically different - the child doesn't get hung up on abstract terms and ideas.  I'm not saying critical thinking is a bad thing, but we have to be careful that we don't get caught in our own web.

I hear of more professionals and serious students having injuries than amateurs.  I believe part of the cause for this is that they put more pressure on themselves to achieve, and this mindset leads them to push themselves too hard in spite of their bodies.  It's an injury-prone approach.

Since I've started taking steps towards university, and signed up for an exam,  I've seen the tendancy to pushing myself too hard (these exams aren't cheap, I don't want to have to do this twice!).  As a result I've noticed tension creeping into my playing (trying to learn to play chords accurately in a compressed timeframe can do that!)...  and I think of how conservatories work like this all the time - there's always some test to be passing, some benchmark to meet.  This pressure to achieve becomes a double edged sword if we're not careful.  It can be a tightrope walk at times.

Even being careful carries the danger of causing tension in practice if carried too far, hahah.  The best solution I've found is to vigilantly focus on ease, and when that's achieved to take it no further - don't 'fix' what's not broken.  That's the line where critical thinking becomes destructive.

We have to think about our thinking

[pianistimo]

very good points, rc.  i agree totally that one needs to consider their own limitations and not try to have a speed competition with everyone else. we all learn at different rates (and while these may be challenged in college) the real speed is of the mind.

also, i found that my teacher thinks 90% about sound and hardly anything about 'technique' in terms of my lessons with him.  he wasn't stopping me every 5 minutes and putting my hands in a better position.  only maybe three times  (i think ) majorly explaining something within the span of three semesters.  mostly it was about the type of sound one gets from the piano (and in that context - how to achieve it).

basically, the fingers are the starting source of the sound that we make.  if the energy that comes from them is perpetuated from momentum - then really the most difficult part of piano playing is the start and stop.

ps this is sort of off-topic slightly - but i think that our core or 'solar-plexus' as i like to call it - is a place where we can pull energy (besides the brain).  i find that when my middle is toned - and this seems a strange thing to say - i can play a lot better.  now, i know some people who are overweight and don't have a problem at all playing the piano.  but, for me personally - my best playing is when i have a toned mid-section from cycling or situps.  there is something innate about being able to #1 sit at the piano comfortably  #2 pull energy freely

for instance,  try slouching at the piano and playing something.  then sit up as tall as you can stretch your mid-section (lowering the bench if it helps).  i find this 'marionette' stretch up the spine invigorating and helpful to playing.

[rc]

Thanks Mrs.P

Most of my lessons are sound oriented, and my practice took a turn for the better when I took that approach at home too.  We want to focus on the intended goal, that being the sound, it's easy to lose track and get caught in the mechanical approach which is more of a peripheral thing.

Though the 'mechanique' is useful from time to time.  You mentioned the fingers as the starting point, yesterday I had to be reminded of that.  I was having troubles, trying to use the upper arms to guide the fingers, until the logic of the body showed me that it was where the fingers go that determines the upper arms support.  Then it all fell into place.  The idea of upper arms being the beginning of the motion makes sense to the head, but to the body it's better to start with the fingers and make sure the rest of the body is free to follow.

...and the sound we want to make is what determines where the fingers are supposed to be.

That's a good point about the core too Pianistimo!  My thought is that when your abs are in shape, they naturally support the torso in a good postural alignment.  I know what you mean about it freeing up energy, it really IS easier to play when the posture is right.  To me it feels like I'm more grounded, a better connection between the keyboard -> hands -> body -> solid chair.  It's more stable, bad posture feels more like I'm floating haphazardly, and constantly having to compensate for it.

This all sounds like stuff I've read before, but it means more when I've actually experienced it.

[rachmanny]

I need help with my right 5th finger, it seems that it moves much less freely than my left 5th finger, and even playing scales gets hard for me sometimes with my right hand.  I feel as if my 4th ad 5th fingers are way too attached to each other , making them extremely dependent of each other,, more than normal i´d say.  I already know that the third, fourth, and fifth have a shared tendon, but i think my problem may come from a lack of good excercise and phrasing in my begining years in piano, and as a consequences there may be tension the between 4th and 5th fingers. How may i solve this on the piano, i dont think phrasing will help at this stage, i am used to playing like this, but i think i´d have better fingering if there were a solution to this.

thanks,
Rachmanny

[danny elfboy]

I need help with my right 5th finger, it seems that it moves much less freely than my left 5th finger, and even playing scales gets hard for me sometimes with my right hand.  I feel as if my 4th ad 5th fingers are way too attached to each other , making them extremely dependent of each other,, more than normal i´d say.  I already know that the third, fourth, and fifth have a shared tendon, but i think my problem may come from a lack of good excercise and phrasing in my begining years in piano, and as a consequences there may be tension the between 4th and 5th fingers. How may i solve this on the piano, i dont think phrasing will help at this stage, i am used to playing like this, but i think i´d have better fingering if there were a solution to this.

thanks,
Rachmanny

The best I know to overcome such problem is to take your piece, break it into very small fragments. Practice a fragment without esitation (flowing) and at the end of fragment you stop, check your body

(are your muscle still tensed [any tension after the keys have been depressed is just wasted energy] is your neck lock, is your back bend, are you sitting on the bone tail instead of the pelvis rockers (below your bottom fat) are you keeping your wrist tight instead of loose, are you fixing your upperarm instead of letting them hang freely, are putting tension in your elbow instead of using it as a pivotal?)

and correct all the problems. Then relax the hand, wrist, arm by placing your hands on your lap. Breath, think of the next fragment you're going to practice and do it. Again at the end of the fragment do the above again. Check, Relax, Breath and Think

What you obtain from this is that you never allow tension to be accumulate and to hinder your movements. Even when you can play the fragments with musicality, accuracy, control and without tension and are ready to make a whole piece out of them the whole underlaying periodical release will be still underlying your playing never allowing you to build tension.

In fact if you do this you'll reach a point where you won't be able to play with accumulated tension and fatigue even if you wanted to. To feel pain even if you wanted to. To make your fingers weak even if you wanted to